Case Study of CPT Application to Evaluate Seismic Settlement in Dry Sand

Fred (Feng) Yi
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, C.H.J. Incorporated, Colton, CA, USA

ABSTRACT: Interpretations of geotechnical parameters based on Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data were performed and compared with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data and laboratory testing results collected from various sites in California. Specific attention was paid to the estimation of fines content and conversion of CPT data to SPT (N1)60 blowcounts since they are often needed in seismic settlement evaluation of dry sand for the use of Pradels (1998) method. A new relationship between volumetric strain, cyclic shear strain, and normalized tip resistance was derived based on the laboratory test data of Silver and Seed (1971) for dry clean sands. An example of the proposed CPT-based method is presented with a comparison to the results calculated using Pradels original method as well as with the results based on SPT data from adjacent borings. 1 INTRODUCTION Since its development in the 1950s, the CPT has become one of the most used and accepted in-situ testing methods for geotechnical investigation due to advantages such as continuum of sampling, repeatability, and economical efficiency. Since actual soil samples are not recovered during CPT, no laboratory soil testing is performed. Interpretation of CPT data with regard to soil parameters becomes important in the application of CPT results to various designs. Robertson & Campanella (1983a, 1983b) published two major papers in 1983 on the interpretation of CPT data. Since then, various papers have been published by researchers in this field (Mayne et al 2001; Mayne 2007; Robertson 2009). CPT interpretations are widely applied in geotechnical engineering. Various methods have been established for the application of CPT results, such as evaluating shallow and deep foundation bearing capacities, liquefaction potential, as well as liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral spreading deformation (Lunne et al. 1997; Robertson & Wride 1998; Idriss & Boulanger 2008). However, there seems to be no work on the prediction of seismic settlement of dry sand directly based on CPT data. The intention of the present work is to compare various interpretations with measured data and propose a new method to estimate seismic settlement of dry sand directly based on CPT data. The validity of the proposed method has been verified by com-

paring the settlement analysis results from adjacent SPT borings and the analyses performed using traditional methods for dry sand settlement using SPT data. 2 CPT DATA INTERPRETATION 2.1 Estimation of Fines Content Fines content is an important parameter used in the evaluation of liquefaction potential as it relates to the correction to clean sand resistance. Several correlations have been proposed in recent years (Robertson & Wride 1998; Suzuki et al. 1998; Idriss & Boulanger 2008; Cetin & Ozan 2009). Robertson & Wride (1998) use the term, apparent fines content (referred to as FC hereafter), and suggest the following relationship correlated to soil behavior type (referred to as SBT hereafter) index ( I c ). If I c < 1.26 , FC = 0% (1a) If I c is between 1.26 and 3.5, FC (%) = 1.75 I c 3.25 3.7 (1b) If I c > 3.5 , FC = 100% (1c) If I c is between 1.64 and 2.36, and FR < 0.5% , FC = 5% (1d) The expression for I c was derived by Robertson & Wride (1998) as
I c = [(3.47 log Qtn ) 2 + (log FR + 1.22) 2 ]0.5

(2a)

where Qtn is the normalized CPT penetration resistance and FR is the normalized friction ratio.
Qtn = [(qc v 0 ) / p a ]( p a / v 0 ')
n

(2b) (2c)

FR = f s / (qc v 0 ) 100%

where v 0 is the total overburden pressure, v 0 ' is the effective overburden pressure, qc is the measured tip resistance, f s is the measure sleeve friction, pa is atmospheric pressure, and component n varies from 0.5 in sands to 1.0 in clays (Robertson & Wride 1998). Based on the data from Suzuki et al. (1998), Idriss & Boulanger (2008) derived a correlation between FC and I c as
FC = 2.8 I c (%)
2.6

(3)

Cetin & Ozan (2009) proposed another approach based on a probabilistic method.
FC = (RFC 238.50 ) / 1.75 100 20.93 (%)

(4a)

where. RFC is a parameter similar to I c .

RFC =

[log( F ) + 55.42] + [log(q

2 R

t ,1, net

) 233.52]

(4b)

where FR is as defined in Equation 2c and qt ,1, net is the normalized net cone tip resistance and is defined as
qt ,1, net = (qt v 0 ) / ( v 0 ' / pa )
c

(4c)

where c is a power law stress normalization exponent with a value between 0.25 and 1.0. Iterations are needed to calculate c and qt ,1, net .
2

The author collected 144 measured fines content results from 10 project sites. This data and another 244 data points from Suzuki et al. (1998) were plotted on an I c versus FC chart in Figure 1 as originally constructed by Robertson & Wride (1998). The solid circles in Figure 1 show the data collected from southern California sites. The empty circles represent the data from 4 sites in Moss Landing obtained by Boulanger et al. (1995) in the investigation after the 1989 Loma Pieta earthquake. The diamonds illustrate data from Suzuki et al. (1998). Equations 1 and 3 as well as the SBT zones defined by Robertson & Wride (1998) are also shown in the figure. It can be seen that both equations underestimate the fines content, especially when I c is larger than approximately 2.3. Moreover, by examining the relationship between FC and the SBT zone, it is clear that the relationship is inconsistent with that based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in which the fines content is defined as less than 5% for clean sand, between 5 and 12% for sand with silt, between 12 and 50% for silty sand, and higher than 50% for silt or clay. Although, Robertson & Wride (1998) did not directly utilize the Apparent Fine Content to correct the equivalent clean sand resistance, it is anticipated that this kind of correction may be performed by readers erroneously.
4

Zone 2: organic soils - peats Zone 3: silty clay to clay

Soil Behavior Type Index, Ic

Zone 4: clayey silt to silty clay Zone 5: silty sand to sandy silt
2

Silty sand

Zone 6: clean sand to silty sand Zone 7: gravelly sand to dense sand

Clean sand

Sand with silt

Robertson & Wride (1998) Idriss and Boulanger (2008) Recommended This study Data from Suzuki et al.(1998)
20 30 40 50 60

Silt to Clay

0 0 10 70 80 90 100

Fine Contents, FC(%) Figure 1. Relationships of Soil Behavior Type Index, Fines Content and Soil Classification

Based on the measured FC data as shown in Figure 1, it is suggested that the following relationship could be utilized to predict the values of FC for a given value of Ic . FC (%) = 0 I c < 1.31 , (5a)
1.31 I c < 2.325 ,
2.325 I c < 3.2 ,

I c 3.2 , 1.31 < I c 2.36 and FR < 0.6% ,

I 2.325 FC (%) = 43.67 I c 57.2 + 10 sin c 1.015 FC (%) = 63.62 I c 103.59 FC (%) = 100

(5b) (5c) (5d) (5e)

FC (%) = 5.0 FR
3

The correlation between Equation 5 and the measured FC data as well as the soil types based on USCS classification are also illustrated in Figure 1. Based on this relationship, the boundaries of soil behavior type proposed by Robertson (1990) could be refined as shown in Table 1 to obtain consistency with respect to the USCS. The comparison of the measured and calculated fines content is presented in Figure 2. Fines content predicted by Equation 3 is less than that predicted by Equation 1 when I c > 2.47 and was not included in the comparison. It can be seen that Robertson & Wrides method seems to underestimate the fines content while Cetin & Ozans method may overestimate the fines content when fines content is less than approximately 20 percent, although the data scatter of Cetin & Ozans and recommended methods seems similar for fines content higher than 20 percent. Overall, it can be seen that the proposed relationship (Eq. 5) generally provides better correlations with measured data.
Table 1. Boundaries of soil behavior type (refined from Robertson 1990) Soil behavior type index, Zone USCS Classification Ic I c < 1.31 7 Gravelly sand to dense sand 6a Clean sand 1.31 I c < 1.61 6b Sand with silt 1.61 I c < 1.81 6c Silty sand 1.81 I c < 2.05 5a Silty sand 2.05 I c < 2.40 5b Sandy silt 2.40 I c < 2.60 Silt mixture: clayey silt to silty clay 4 2.60 I c < 2.95 Silty clay 3a 2.95 I c < 3.20 3b Clay 3.20 I c < 3.60 2 Organic soils: peats I c > 3.60
100 100

Fines content (%) 0 0 ~ 5.0 5.0 ~ 12.0 12.0 ~ 24.8 24.8 ~ 50.0 50.0 ~ 61.8 61.8 ~ 84.0 84.0 ~ 100 100 100

Calculated FC(%) from CPT Data

80

60

Calculated (N1)60 from CPT Data

Robertson & Wride (1998) Cetin & Ozan (2009) This study

Robertson et al. (1986) Idriss & Boulanger (2004) Lunne et al (1997)

10

40

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

1 1 10 100

Measured FC (%)

Measured SPT (N1)60

Figure 2. Comparison of measured and calculated fines content

Figure 3. Comparison of measured and calculated (N1)60

2.2 Conversion to SPT Blowcounts The conversion of CPT resistance to equivalent SPT (N1 )60 blowcounts may not be as important as the prediction of fines content. However, if seismic-induced dry sand settlement is an important issue for a site, the conversion between CPT data and (N1 )60 becomes necessary due to the absence of a method to directly calculate of seismic settlement of dry sand based on CPT data. Several methods have been pro4

posed by individuals in past decades. Robertson et al. (1986) suggested (qc / pa ) / N 60 ratios for each non-normalized soil behavior type classification zone. Jefferies and Davies (1993) proposed a relation of qc / N 60 and I c to provide a continuous variation with soil type. Lunne et al. (1997) revised Jefferies and Davies relationships by utilizing the dimensionless variable (qc / pa ) and a modified I c to give the following equation.
(qc / pa ) / N 60 = 8.5(1 I c / 4.6)

(6)

To evaluate liquefaction based on both SPT and CPT data, Idriss & Boulanger (2004) reevaluated the correlation between (N1 )60 , normalized tip resistance ( qc1N ), and relative density ( DR ) and recommended the following expressions.
qc1 N /( N1 ) 60 = (2.092 DR + 2.224) 3.788 / 46( DR ) 2
DR = 0.478( qc1 N )0.264 1.063, ( qc1 N > 21)

(7a)

For clean sand, Idriss & Boulanger (2004) suggested (7b)

The equivalent (N1 )60 calculated based on the above methods is compared in Figure 3 with the measured (N1 )60 . The data were collected from 10 sites including 6 sites from southern California (solid symbols) and 4 sites from Moss Landing, California (other symbols), for a total number of 241. Figure 3 indicates that, although a large scatter exists, the relationship by Robertson et al. (1986) tends to overestimate and Idriss & Boulangers method (Eq. 7a) tends to underestimate (N1 )60 . The relationship shown in Equation 6 gives a more balanced distribution and is suggested by this author to be used when converting to (N1 )60 . 3 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC SETTLEMENT OF DRY SANDS 3.1 Relative Density Silver & Seed (1971) indicated that one of the important parameter affecting the settlement of dry sand under cyclic loading is the relative density of the soil. Several relations between relative density and tip resistance have been proposed in the past. Tatsuoka et al. (1990) suggested a correlation as shown in the following equation.
DR = 85 + 76 log(qc1N ) (%)
Relative density, DR (%)
100

80

60

40
Tatsuoka et al. (1990) Jamiolkowski et al (2001) Idriss & Boulanger (2004) Recommended

20

(8)

0 0 50 100 150 200 250

Based on chamber testing results for clean sands, Jamiolkowski et al (2001) Figure 4. Relations between relative density and equivalent normalized clean sand resistance found a mean relationship as expressed in Equation 9. The original equation was slightly modified by using a consistent symbol for qc1N .
DR = 26.8 ln(qc1N ) 67.5 (%)

Normalized tip resistance, q c1ncs

(9)

The most recent work performed by Idriss & Boulanger (2004) is shown in Equation 7b. These relationships are plotted in Figure 4. Because the proposed relationships are based on test results for clean sand, an equivalent normalized clean sand tip resistance qc1N cs , instead of qc1N , was adopted for the abscissa in Figure 4. It can be seen that above relationships generally give a range of the estimated DR where the difference varies from approximately 10 to 20%. As such, an average value as expressed in Equation 10 is recommended.
DR = 77.29 log(qc1N ) 94.36 (%) , (qc1N 250)

(10)

3.2 Relationship between volumetric strain and shear strain of dry clean sand Silver & Seed (1971) conducted a series of one-directional cyclic shear tests on dry sand with relative densities of 45, 60, and 80%, and obtained relationships between volumetric and shear strains as shown in Figure 5. The relationship is obtained under 15 equivalent uniform strain cycles, equivalent to a magnitude of 7.5 earthquake.
10 10
DR=45% DR=60% DR=80% DR=45%,qc1Ncs64 DR=60%,qc1Ncs99 DR=80%,qc1Ncs180

Vol. Strain due to Compaction, vc,M=7.5 (%)

Vol. Strain due to Compaction, vc,M=7.5 (%)

0.1
DR=30% DR=45%

0.1
q c1Ncs =40 q c1Ncs =50

0.01

DR=60% DR=80% DR=90%

0.01
q c1Ncs =100 q c1Ncs =150 q c1Ncs =200 q c1Ncs =250

0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 Cyclic Shear Strain, (%)

0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Cyclic Shear Strain, (%)

Figure 5. Relationship between volumetric strain and shear strain for dry clean sands (after Silver & Seed 1971)

Figure 6. Relationship between volumetric strain, shear strain and normalized CPT tip resistance for dry clean sands

By adding Equation 10 into the relationships shown in Figure 5, the equivalent volumetric strain due to compaction could be expressed as a function of qc1N cs and cyclic shear strain as in Equation 11 and as shown in Figure 6.
vc , M = 7.5 = 10 n , n = 18.4 (qc1Ncs ) 0.61 1

(11)

where is the cyclic shear strain and is calculated using Pradels method. 3.3 Corrections for earthquake magnitude and multidirectional shaking The relationships shown in Figures 5 and 6 are for 15 equivalent uniform strain cycles, equivalent to a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. By reviewing previous studies, Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) summarized a scale factor for earthquake magnitudes
6

between 5.25 and 8.5. The original numerical data is expressed by Equation 12.
K vc , M = vc , M / vc , M = 7.5 = 0.26M 0.96

(12)

where M is the magnitude of an earthquake. Pyke et al. (1975) suggested that the volumetric strain should be doubled to account for the multidirectional effects. As such, the volumetric strain for any magnitude could be calculated using following equation.
vc , M = 2 K vc , M vc , M =7.5

(13)

3.4 Case study of proposed method An example of the proposed modified CPT-based method is shown in Figure 8 for Site A located in southern California. The procedures adopted by Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) were followed in the calculation. The shear strain was calculated based on the Pradels (1998) equation and the maximum shear modulus was estimated using the equation recently proposed by Robertson (2009). Figure 7 presents the measured tip resistance and the calculated shear strain, volumetric strain, and settlement. The volumetric strain and settlement calculated based on Pradels method utilizing the converted (N1)60 (Equation 6) are also shown in the figure. It can be seen that the calculated settlements generally agree with each other. For comparison, the results from data obtained from a SPT boring approximately 5 feet away from the CPT sounding are also illustrated in Figure 7. These results indicate that the new method provides good agreement with SPT results.
Tip resistance, q c (MPa)
0 0 25 50 0

Shear strain (%)

0.2 0.4 0

Volumetric strain (%)

1 2 0

Settlement (cm)
1 2 3

Depth (m)

10

15

20

25

50
This study (CPT) SPT

SPT N60

Pradel (CPT)

Figure 7. Calculated shear strain, volumetric strain, and settlement of dry sand for Site A

4 CONCLUSION Interpretations of geotechnical parameters were performed based on CPT data obtained from 10 sites. A set of equations have been proposed based on data collected in this study and previous studies for calculating fines content, relative density, and the volumetric strain under cyclic loading of dry sand. By incorporating these equations
7

into the procedures adopted by Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) and Pradel (1998), seismic settlement of dry sand was computed and compared with the results calculated using Pradels method as well the results from adjacent SPT data. The results indicate good agreements between these results and suggest that the proposed method could be used in the prediction of seismic-induced settlement in dry sand based directly on CPT data. However, due to the absence of measured data, further verification of the proposed method will be necessary. REFERENCE:
Boulanger, R.W., Idriss, I.M., and Mejia, L.H. 1995. Investigation and Evaluation of Liquefaction Related Ground Displacements at Moss Landing during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Report No. UCD/CGM-95/02, University of California, Davis, May. Cetin, K.O. and Ozan C. 2009. CPT-Based Probabilistic Soil Characterization and Classification, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 135, No. 1. Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W. 2004. Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. 11thICSDEE/3rdICEGEProceedings, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion Press, Vol. 1, 32-56. Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. 2008. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquake, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, EERI Publication MNO-12. Jamiolkowski, M., LoPresti, D.C.F., and Manassero, M. 2001, Evaluation of Relative Density and Shear Strength of Sands from Cone Penetration Test and Flat Dilatometer Test, Soil Behavior and Soft Ground Construction (GSP119), ASCE, Reston, Va., 2001, pp. 201238. Jefferies, M.G., and Davies, M.P. 1993. Use of CPTu to estimate equivalent SPT N60, ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16(4), 45867. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M. 1997. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, Blackie Academic and Professional. Mayne, P.W., Christopher, B.R., and DeJong, J., 2001. Manual on Subsurface Investigation, National Highway Institute, FHWA NHI-01-031, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC Mayne, P.W. 2007. Cone Penetration Testing, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 368, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC Pradel, D. 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlement in Dry Sand Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 124, No. 4. 364368. Pyke R., Seed H.B., Chan C.K. 1975. Settlement of sands under multidirectional shaking, Journal. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 101 (4), 379-398. Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. 1983a. Interpretation of cone penetration tests: Part I (sands), Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20 (4), 718-733 Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. 1983b. Interpretation of cone penetration tests: Part II (clays), Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20 (4), 734-745 Robertson, P.K., 1990, Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 27. pp. 151158 Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. 1998. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 442-459. Robertson, P.K., 2009, Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests a unified approach, submitted to Canadian Geotechnical Journal, May, 2009 Accepted for Publication Seed, H.B. and Silver, M.L. 1972. Settlement of dry sands during earthquakes, J. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE, 98 (4), 381-397 Silver, M.L., and Seed, H. B., 1971. Volume changes in sand during cyclic loading, J. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div., ASCE 97(SM9), 1171182. Suzuki, Y., Sanematsu, T., and Tokimatsu, K. 1998. Correlation between SPT and seismic CPT. Proceedings, Conference on Geotechnical Site Characterization, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.1375380. Tatsuoka, F., Zhou, S., Sato, T., and Shibuya, S. 1990. Method of evaluating liquefaction potential and its application. Rep. on Seismic hazards in the soil deposits in urban areas, Ministry of Education of Japan, 75109 (in Japanese). Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B. 1987. Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 113, No. 8
8